Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

6. And what about Jenny Carr's audio record of the day? Can you explain that loud sound just prior to the apparent impact of the plane?

No, that first sound is the impact of the plane. There is a jet-engine sound a couple of seconds prior to it. The second sound you referred to occurred some 9 seconds later.

Originally Posted by gumboot

Judging by most of the other Truther "explosion" evidence, I'd guess it's probably fake.

Well, the original audio I believe is genuine....it was provided by Ginny Carr with her own introduction and description as part of the Sonic Memorial Project, and it was added to the 911 Digital Archive back in 2002 -- prior to proliteration of 9/11 CTs and Mr. Rodriguez's involvement in the 9/11 truth group. Unfortunately, the website seems to now be defunct.

I believe the audio used by Dylan Avery in LC (2nd ed.) has been manipulated, however. The audio of the second noise has been amplified to be just as loud as the first one, when it originally was quieter relative to it, whereas both sounds were amplified vis-a-vis the voices in the room. The first louder sound preceded by the engine noise would correspond to the crash. It is hard to tell what the second sound 9 seconds later may be or what caused it...the sound is not on the Naudet video (at least the version of the footage edited for the "9/11" film), and thus probably not loud enough to register at the distance Jules Naudet was at, and could well have been something more local to One Liberty or the WTC complex. If there were backdrafts, is it in the realm of possibility that they occurred 9 seconds after the crash?

1. Simply trace the route and the amount of the jet fuel, in liquid or fireball form from the initial impact to the basement areas and still account for the survivors located within the elevators.

Once again Swing Dangler, elevator shaft number 6, 7 and 50 went through the impact zone. Shaft number 6 and 7 ended at B-4 while shaft number 50 ended at B-6. These shafts were the route followed by the jet fuel down to the basement.

There were two survivors in freight elevator number 50 that stopped between B-1 and B-2, both were pulled out of the car just before the fireball arrived:

Quote:

'I don't know who saved me. It was so black and smoky. I couldn't see nothin',' Arturo said. 'When they got me out, I told them there was someone else down there, a woman. They went back to get her. Seconds after they pulled her out, a ball of fire came down the shaft. They almost got killed.'

Felipe David who came running into William Rodrguez's office was badly burnt when he was in front of the the freight elevator on either B-1 or B-2. While Arturo and Marlene avoided burns since they were lying on the floor due to their injuries when the fireball arrived.

And do not forget that Arturo's wife survived even though she was inside her elevator car in a different shaft when the fireball arrived:

Quote:

A full elevator had just left the 78th floor, and Carmen was about to carry up six or seven stragglers. The plane struck as the doors of her elevator closed. They could hear debris smash into the top of the car; then the elevator cracked open, and flames poured in. Carmen jammed her fingers between the closed doors, pulled them partly open and held them as passengers clambered over and under her 5-foot-6 frame to escape.

Before finally throwing herself out onto the lobby floor, she glanced back to be sure the elevator was empty. That was when fire scorched her face with second- and third-degree burns, and literally welded her hooped right earring to her neck. Her hands were badly burned.

Tracing the fireballs way down to the basement is not exactly rocket science Swing Dangler. It is time for you to stop repeating this question in thread after thread, you know the answers I have given you above.

I somehow missed all earlier referrences to Jenny Carr. It would help if I could see a better account before commenting further, but the one link I could find, in a Google clip that Dylan had had his hands on, suggests that she was far enough from the impact that she could have picked up more than one event. What is the best available source on her stroy?

I'd suspect strongly that a backdraft would also be subsonic, and have similar attributes to a fuel vapor deflagration.

Yes it would definitely be subsonic, but it would be violent enough like this one:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

They decided to ascend two more levels to the building's lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up "like a piece of aluminum foil" and lying on the floor. "They got us again," Mike told his co-worker, referring to the terrorist attack at the center in 1993. Having been through that bombing, Mike recalled seeing similar things happen to the building's structure. He was convinced a bomb had gone off in the building. Mike walked through the open doorway and found two people lying on the floor.

leftysergeant: It's Ginny -- not Jenny -- Carr. The audio was hosted by the 911 Digital Archive, which is currently redoing their website and the original audio links are defunct. This is what you get when you search for Ginny Carr:

I dug up a report on the 1993 bombing by the United States Fire administration, it is actually a republishing of several articles from Fire Engineering Magazine. But it contains a lot useful information regarding this discussion.

Regarding this discussion the following account by John J. Walpole in the basement of the Vista Hotel (Marriott in 2001) in 1993 should be quiet significant:

Quote:

At the time of the explosion, I was waiting for an elevator with
another individual on the B-l level. An invisible blast wave emanated
from the elevator shaft, immediately followed by an onrush of air back into
the elevator shaft. It was when the backrush of air occurred -not during
the initial blast -that building materials and debris began to fall around
us.

Page 38 in the report

Judging by the figure on page 40 he was about 200 feet away from the detonation of a bomb of more than 1000 pounds surrounded with hydrogen canisters on the level below. He was hit by the blast wave, but no flames came up and burned him.

There are several accounts of the damage and the fires caused by this bomb in 1993 in the report. The damage described by the 2001 witnesses in the basement is not even close to the damage created by the 1993 bomb. The truck was parked only a few feet away from the B-2 level exterior wall of WTC 1, less than 100 feet away from the elevator shafts, yet not a word about fireballs traveling up the elevator shafts burning to death people inside or outside the elevators, in the Lobby area of WTC 1 for instance. The explosion only:

Quote:

The shock
waves from the explosion blew down the doors in the
subbasement shaft, giving the smoke full access to the elevator
shaft. Numerous people trapped in these elevators suffered from
smoke inhalation.

Page 78 in the report, picture on page 156.

So much for Swing Danglers claim that the 2001 "explosion" originated in the parking lot. And in 2001 not a word about burning cars or collapsed floors in the basement.

Hmmm firefighters after impact and and after basement explosions in the basement instead of the impact zone. It sure sounds like firefighting efforts were split to me.

Look, this line of argument is not only pointless, it's just plain bizarre.

You attempted to argue that, perhaps, someone "planted explosives" in the sublevels specifically to distract firefighting efforts from the impact zone.

The firefighters never even got to the impact zone, excepting only the superhuman Chief Orio Palmer (RIP with honor), and he was a ruddy marathon runner with a light gear load. You can't split the firefighting efforts because there weren't any. This "diversion" of yours could only (potentially) delay rescue operations on floors above ground but well below impact. Firefighting upstairs was hindered by logistics, and any such distractions would have been utterly superfluous.

Besides, why divert them in the first place? According to you, the Towers weren't just loaded with decoy explosives, they were also demolished by explosives, and not fire. So why bother? The firefighting efforts would have been utterly futile. According to you, that building was coming down, fire or no fire. So why contradict yourself?

Honestly, is that the best reason you can come up with for "explosives" in the basement? It's preposterous.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

The standpipe's 294A and B as well as the jockeypump were located in the basement hence the desire to eliminate this firefighting process.

You realize that the explosion on the 22nd floor knocked out the Secure Command Center's ability to manually start the sprinkler system? Oh well, sorry I got off topic there.

As I've already remarked, according to you, hindering firefighting efforts is pointless since you believe the fire was inconsequential. Ignoring that for a moment, the basement standpipe and jockeypump, as well as the manual controls elsewhere, wouldn't do anybody any good anyway. The standpipes were broken at the impact zone. There was an effort underway to manually reroute the standpipes as firefighters ascended, but it never completed and may have been futile in any event. So, once again, you have no compelling reason for mythical "explosives" on the lower levels. None.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

I'm sorry but if you would have sourced it, I would not have asked for your source.

Correction -- if you bothered to read carefully, you wouldn't have asked for the source. It's not my fault. I did source it.

In this post, note the underline below the words "were lifts that did fall." That's a link, much like the one you cliked on under "this post" to get there. It takes you to the USA Today article in question. Fully sourced. Months ago. Your powers of observation do not convey a sense of general competence.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

Where did I get the idea? From NIST. I thought you were the resident expert on the NIST report.

Arturo Griffith's account from the USA Today source of course disproves the car 50 crash nonsense as do the emergency brakes on the other car and their maintenance.

Why yes, I might be among the local NIST Report experts. I misunderstood you -- it appeared that you had some other source that disputed NIST's conclusion, namely that several elevators were cut by the impact, and fell deep into the structure.

If you're complaining that the freight elevator (50) didn't actually hit bottom, as NIST sugggests, but instead miraculously halted between the B-1 and B-2 levels, then you're correct; NIST is slightly inaccurate with respect to this detail. However, this has no impact on the viability of the jet fuel path, nor the damage caused by its deflagration. I fail to see what you're complaining about.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

Explosives doesn't make sense? LOL. [...] Yet when a similar explosion takes place in the basement that reminded others of the 1993 truck bomb and indeed caused damage that reminded them of a truck bomb, instead of accepting the most logical excuse, a truck bomb, the implausibility of a jet fuel explosion is offered with only assumptions to support that theory.

Why is everyone so resistant to a truck bomb in the basement anyway? Yet accept without question and without proof, jet fuel.

Laugh while you can. Explosives make absolutely no sense, as I am about to demonstrate to you again.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

You shouldn't have any problems answering these questions in regards to the jet fuel phenomena. Or did you avoid them?

1. Simply trace the route and the amount of the jet fuel, in liquid or fireball form from the initial impact to the basement areas and still account for the survivors located within the elevators. [Etc.]

Poster Norseman answered this skillfully, even though I know you've been given the answer numerous times before, three times by me alone. Read his answer, and please stop asking. It makes you seem... simple.

I will tackle the energy "questions," below.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

Hey we agree on something!! Let's see some numbers in support of the jet fuel excuse. I've been looking for years for that and I can't seem to find any.

As much as I'd appreciate a straight answer from you once in a while, Swing, I have to admit that it would be so startling, I'd have to suppress the impulse to suspect you of loaning your account to somebody else.

I'll give you straight answers, though. Here's some: I don't think you even have any numbers. I think you made that up out of thin air. I don't think you have the math to find out, one way or the other.

But I do.

Here's your questions:

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

First, before I accept this information, can you source the 24,000 pounds of fuel from the NIST report.
Second, what class of explosives are you referring to?
Third, can you provide the necessary numbers to prove jet fuel caused the amount of damage in the basement levels?

Fourth, why are you using the energy equivalent of remaining jet fuel after the impact to prove 100,000 pounds of explosives in each basement had to be used? You would be better off to show the process and data behind the jet fuel to prove it caused the destruction witnessed.

If you sincerely believe in the jet fuel excuse then it should be easy to answer the following questions:
1. Can you source the amount in pounds of jet fuel in each tower after the initial impact and explosion?

2. Second, can your provide the fuel/air ratio necessary for the explosion as well as blast pressure data?

3. Third, can you provide the calculations supporting the official story that jet fuel fireball caused the damage in the basement? You know those energy
numbers NIST didn't provide in their report.

4. Fourth, can you provide any witnesses who saw the amount of jet fuel you claimed did or could do the damage in the multiple levels of the basement?

Yet debunkers accept as fact the jet fuel excuse without anyway to quantify the damage to the basement with numbers that mean anything despite the historical record of terrorists, the FBI's working theory, the eyewitness descriptions, etc, etc.! Go figure!

In order, here are the answers.

1. 24,000 pounds of fuel is the estimate that NIST gave for the amount of fuel running into the lower structure. NIST estimated that there were 66,100 pounds of fuel in AA11 and 62,000 pounds in UA175 at impact (NCSTAR1-2B, pg. 171). Of those totals, NIST estimated that 20% was consumed in the initial fireballs, 40% was distributed on the impact floors, and 40% drained or flowed into the lower structure (NCSTAR1-5F pg. 56).

Yes, these are rough estimates, and I am on record criticizing these estimates in my whitepaper. However, working out a better estimate either through investigation or modeling would be a nontrivial undertaking, and for now, it's the best we have. Certainly it's in the right ballpark.

2. I'm referring to all chemical explosives. The energy density of Jet A is approximately 43 MJ / kg (remember that number for later). The typical yardstick, TNT, is a mere 4.2 MJ / kg, ten times less. Exotic, impractical, high-powered explosives such as octanitrocubane only get up to about 7.5 to 8 MJ / kg, still a factor of five below Jet A. It really doesn't matter what explosive compound you fantasize about, they just aren't going to give you more energy than the jet fuel, unless you propose a fantastic amount of it. I can only assume you don't know much about explosives.

3. As a matter of fact, I can prove that jet fuel could cause the damage seen. This step is a long one.

To begin, let us model the problem as follows: Suppose the entire basement of a Tower suffered an overpressure event, sufficient to cause the observed damage. We can describe the damage qualitatively:

There was extensive damage to interior and furniture over a wide area.

Damage to the structure, however, was minor to negligible.

There are no reports of anyone being killed by the blast. The principal danger was fire.

Based on these factors, we estimate that the magnitude of the pressure pulse was moderate, in the range of 1 PSI, since overpressures of 5 PSI typically damage or destroy all but hardened structures, and would have surely killed many who were inside. Nevertheless, we want to overestimate the energy requirement to make absolutely certain that my contention -- that the jet fuel is more than sufficient -- is true. We will use the higher, less credible estimate of 5 PSI. In proper units, this is 34.5 kPa.

Next, suppose the deflagration pressurized the entire volume of the basement to 5 PSI. This is another deliberate overestimate. In actual fact, the overpressure would be a wave rather than a static phenomenon, and thus the true energy requirements are much, much lower. Let us suppose that the basement area was the size of the WTC footprint (64 m square) times a depth of 25 m, sufficient for at least six sublevels. This is a total volume of roughly 100,000 m3.

Next, we work out the energy required to raise that entire volume by the pressure differential required. There are several ways to calculate this, depending on your model of the process. The simplest is to consider the Bernoulli energy density, in which case E = ΔP V, but this only applies in non-dissipative processes along streamlines, and is generally an underestimate. At the other extreme, we can consider an increase in pressure due to heating in a constant-volume process, which is maximally entropic and will overestimate the energy required. We will use the latter extreme.

To solve the energy density in this fashion, we simply apply the Ideal Gas Law, in this case expressed as follows:

ΔP V = n R ΔT (1)

where n is the number of moles of gas and R is the gas constant.

After we solve for the increase in temperature, we can then extract the energy required from the simple expression:

E = ρ V cs ΔT (2)

where ρ is the density of air and hence ρ V is the total mass of air, and cs is the specific heat capacity of air.

Substituting for ΔT in (2) using a rearrangement of (1), we find that:

E = ρ V2 cs ΔP / n R (3)

Or, using the shorthand N = ρ V / n where N is the molar mass of air, i.e. the number of grams per mol, we arrive at the answer:

E = N V cs ΔP / R (4)

Values for these constants are as follows:

N = 28.97 g / mol

cs = 1.012 J / g K

R = 8.31 Pa m3 / mol K

And so we find that:

E = 3.53 V ΔP (5)

In other words, this formulation is roughly 3.5 times the energy of the Bernoulli approach. All that work for a lousy factor of 3.5. So it goes.

We are now ready to compute the answer. In our problem, V = 100,000 m3, and ΔP = 34.5 kPa. Therefore, the energy required in our model -- understanding, again, that it is a deliberate overestimate -- is equal to:

E = 3.53 (100,000 m3) (34.5 kPa) = 12.5 GJ

12.5 GJ is a lot of energy. But how much is that in terms of jet fuel? Now recall that jet fuel has an energy density of 43 MJ / kg. This means, in order to get this much energy, we need (12.5 GJ) / (43 MJ / kg) = 290 kilograms of jet fuel.

That's all. 290 kg, or about 640 pounds, 375 liters, just under 100 US gallons.

I remind you, this is a wild overestimate. In practice, the fuel will probably not all burn at once, and will not be terribly efficient, but the constant-volume method above captures all of these effects. The actual number might be two to ten times smaller if we did it carefully, but that doesn't matter.

What matters is that 290 kg of jet fuel is a totally acceptable amount of jet fuel to pour down the elevator shafts. The damage seen in the basement is, therefore, perfectly reasonable.

I'll hurry through the rest of the questions.

4. To do the same amount of damage with explosives, using the ratios already discussed above, you would need about 2900 kg of TNT, or 1450 kg of the obscure and never-used octanitrocubane. Any explosive you pick will land somewhere in the middle or perhaps heavier than these figures. That's a heck of a big boom.

5. This is a repeat of Question 1. See above for the source of the jet fuel amounts.

6. I can only assume that your question about mixing ratios is a desperate clutch at straws. Jet fuel's mixture ratio is 0.044 by mass. Our 290 kg of jet fuel would thus require 6591 kg of air, or a volume of 5492 m3, or about 5% of the volume treated in the above exercise. There is plenty of air to get it done. Nice try.

7. Repeat of Question 3.

8. I have no need to provide witnesses. The level of destruction that would be wrought by my model explosion above is greater than even the most speculative cherry-picked assessment of witness reports. This is the value of doing a bracketing or "worst case" analysis. I can afford to sacrifice precision, since the effect is so obviously within the capability of a jet fuel explosion.

9. It should now be perfectly obvious why we accept the jet fuel argument, and why we reject the "truck bomb" argument. But for your benefit, I'll state it anyway:

Remember how big the "truck bomb" was in 1993? 1300 pounds of various low to moderate explosives, call it 1000 pounds TNT equivalent. My jet fuel situation above is about five times more powerful. You'd have to spec an awfully big truck.

Despite being smaller than my jet fuel case, the 1993 truck bomb woke up the whole damn town. No way to conceal that. Forget it. It would be totally obvious that high explosives had been used. The jet fuel, on the other hand, delivers its blast as a deflagration, and is totally consistent with witness statements, both inside and outside the structure.

Even a smaller truck bomb, on par with the 1993 event, would have killed people through blast and shrapnel. Didn't happen. So you must have a smaller truck bomb. This contradicts the points above, thus the hypothesis is DOA.

Unlike truck bombs, it's clear to everyone that there was jet fuel in massive quantities running all over the place. There's no evidence for explosives. The "excuse" is yours.

How anyone would trigger a bomb coincident with a jetliner impact is almost too incredible to contemplate. Was someone watching with his finger on the button? Why? What's the point?

---

I strongly suspect this entire exercise won't change your totally unsupported and fantastical beliefs one bit, but maybe I'm wrong. Justify my optimism. Try to understand. Take all the time you need.

My main reason for rejecting the idea of the truck bomb is that the explosions and injuries were so closely associated with or occurred in elevator shafts. This would support the fuel deflagration theory in that an HE detonation in those shafts would have shredded the personnel in the elevators and blown out walls as well as doors around the shafts. Thus, it would appear that the explosions were set off as air met the fuel vapors outside the shafts or just inside the shafts near a door that admitted some air. With a supply of fuel still arriving froim above throguh the shafts, it is not, then, surprising that more than one blast would occur.

Now, consider, too, that a truck bomb would have reuptured the fuel tanks of vehicles parked nearby in the garage levels. This would have resulted in rather wide-spread class B fires in the garage levels. Such was not the case.

In recall seeing footage of the 93 blast aftermath with a great quantity of black smoke coming from the lower levels, which was absent on 9/11. The two events were, then, of apparently different nature.

As for splitting the fire fighting operations to maximize casualties, I do not find this at all sensible. It was beyond the capabilities of the fire department to fight such wide-spread fires so high up without functioning sprinklers. The jets took care of that.

Since it was planned, by the twoofer version of events, to bring the towers down, it would have made more sense to let more fire fighters gain the 78th floor, thus trapping more of them with no place to run as collapse intitiated.

Secondary devides in terrorist attacks are usually timed to detonate in staging areas after fire fighters have arrived and begun working on other areas of the crime scene, thus catching them from behind with a directiona l device of some sort, are booby trapping areas where emergency personnel could be expected to trip the devices. Setting off secondary devices prior to the arrival of first responders makes little, if any sense.

Well, R. Mackey pretty much knocked this one out of the park, but to add my own two cents worth to a couple of comments from back around my post:

Originally Posted by Norseman

Yes it would definitely be subsonic, but it would be violent enough like this one:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

The first noise gets people's attention, the second does not. It sounds to me more like something bumping the recording device. Notice that one voice, apparently closer to the microphone, registers louder than the attention-getting device. People interupted in the middle of a meeting by some strange event have a tendancy to put down things they are holding, like coffee cups and such. The recording device was there to capture conversations within the room, and was probably just sitting on a desk or conference table. Isolatiing it from random sounds was not a major concern, since they were in an office building, as compared to the street or a manufacturing facility.

[quote=R.Mackey;3193586]Look, this line of argument is not only pointless, it's just plain bizarre.

Quote:

You attempted to argue that, perhaps, someone "planted explosives" in the sublevels specifically to distract firefighting efforts from the impact zone.

The firefighters never even got to the impact zone, excepting only the superhuman Chief Orio Palmer (RIP with honor), and he was a ruddy marathon runner with a light gear load. You can't split the firefighting efforts because there weren't any. This "diversion" of yours could only (potentially) delay rescue operations on floors above ground but well below impact. Firefighting upstairs was hindered by logistics, and any such distractions would have been utterly superfluous.

The firefighter’s never got to the impact zone…except a firefighting effort.
Contradiction number 1 noted.
You can’t split the firefighting efforts because there weren’t any, yet you described an attempt in your paragraph.
Contradiction number 2 noted.
We do agree then that rescue efforts were delayed or at least hindered by a split in firefighter’s forces as proven by Ed’s account as well as others.
My suggestion as a possible motivation to split firefighting efforts stands and is not disproved. Rescue efforts which I associated with firefighting efforts were split and hampered as well. Your opinion of such distractions is a moot point.

Quote:

Besides, why divert them in the first place? According to you, the Towers weren't just loaded with decoy explosives, they were also demolished by explosives, and not fire. So why bother? The firefighting efforts would have been utterly futile. According to you, that building was coming down, fire or no fire. So why contradict yourself?

From the terrorist’s point of view, even they didn’t think the towers would collapse by plane impact alone which would necessitate at least in their view additional explosives. See OBL’s statements. I’m not arguing from an “inside job” point of view at this point. A truck bomb in the basement is of course consistent with terrorist activities despite who you think the terrorists are. If I'm not mistaken, the goal of the 1993 attack was to bring the towers down, correct?

Quote:

Honestly, is that the best reason you can come up with for "explosives" in the basement? It's preposterous.

Preposterous? Hardly. Contradicting yourself multiple times to disprove a ‘motivation’ theory is preposterous. Using opinion in an attempt to disprove a fact is preposterous.
Someone who supports the NIST report almost wholeheartedly yet attempts to disprove the NIST report wrong is preposterous. The NIST report categorically states that a fireball traveling down the elevator shafts is what caused the damage. You are contradicting their analysis by suggesting jet fuel made its way down the shafts, pooled, and later ignited causing the damage.

Quote:

As I've already remarked, according to you, hindering firefighting efforts is pointless since you believe the fire was inconsequential. Ignoring that for a moment, the basement standpipe and jockeypump, as well as the manual controls elsewhere, wouldn't do anybody any good anyway. The standpipes were broken at the impact zone. There was an effort underway to manually reroute the standpipes as firefighters ascended, but it never completed and may have been futile in any event. So, once again, you have no compelling reason for mythical "explosives" on the lower levels. None.

Ryan, you realize there was the potential for fire in more areas that just the impact zone. Sorry , this point is rejected because you focus on the impact zone only, and not the entire structure susceptibility to fire.

Quote:

Why yes, I might be among the local NIST Report experts. I misunderstood you -- it appeared that you had some other source that disputed NIST's conclusion, namely that several elevators were cut by the impact, and fell deep into the structure.

You are are suppose to be an expert on the NIST report yet argue against their conclusion of a fireball causing the damage in favor of large amounts of jet fuel making its way to the basement then pooling, without anyone noticing and then igniting.

Quote:

If you're complaining that the freight elevator (50) didn't actually hit bottom, as NIST sugggests, but instead miraculously halted between the B-1 and B-2 levels, then you're correct; NIST is slightly inaccurate with respect to this detail. However, this has no impact on the viability of the jet fuel path, nor the damage caused by its deflagration. I fail to see what you're complaining about.

One there is nothing miraculous about the event as emergency brakes appear to be a standard mechanical feature on elevators in high rise structures.
NIST wasn’t slightly inaccurate, they were flat wrong on multiple occasions by stating car 50 fell to the basement pits and didn’t stop!

The viability of this jet fuel downpour of course has everything do with it. Why? Because you would have numerous witnesses describing the amount of fuel pouring into the elevator cars, onto the floors, etc. This is why I suspect you couldn’t and won’t produce anyone who witnessed such jet as there was none. I also suspect that is why you don’t care about eyewitnesses or their statements or what happened to them in relation to the basement level explosion/s. Their statements do not support jet fuel pooling in the basement, so you ignore them! Excellent strategy!
Rmackey, you are arguing jet fuel traveled down the shafts and later exploded. NIST says a fireball traveled down the shaft. Why are you disputing NIST’s assumption again?

Quote:

Laugh while you can. Explosives make absolutely no sense, as I am about to demonstrate to you again.

Ok, explosives in the basement make no sense unless it is 1993?
It is interesting that you ignore the first descriptions of eyewitness testimony and what clearly reminded them of the 1993 truck bombing, the working theory of the FBI and Port Authority, etc.

Quote:

Poster Norseman answered this skillfully, even though I know you've been given the answer numerous times before, three times by me alone. Read his answer, and please stop asking. It makes you seem... simple.

It is the descriptions of survivors in the elevators that disprove the “jet fuel flow down the shafts excuse for the damage in the numerous basement levels”.
I’m quite aware of the elevator shaft arrangement as listed by Norseman long before Gravy’s paper was peddled around here.

If you examine his comment you will notice something. Jet fuel pours down the elevator shaft in the first part of the segment and then later in the comment a fireball. Arturo Griffith proves that Car 50 can be ruled out with regards to the "pooling jet fuel" theory.

Quote:

I will tackle the energy "questions," below. You've got to love the sheer arrogance of this guy. He says, out of the frickin' blue, that "jet fuel didn't have enough energy to do that much damage." I call him on it, and demand to see his numbers. Does he provide numbers? Of course not. He provides no support at all, and demands numbers from me.
Actually I was hoping to get numbers from NIST that you might have stashed away. But it is a moot point. NIST states a fireball did the damage, not jet fuel pooling in the basement levels and then exploding.
As much as I'd appreciate a straight answer from you once in a while, Swing, I have to admit that it would be so startling, I'd have to suppress the impulse to suspect you of loaning your account to somebody else.

Thanks for the character attack. I appreciate it.

Here's your questions:

Quote:

In order, here are the answers.1. 24,000 pounds of fuel is the estimate that NIST gave for the amount of fuel running into the lower structure. NIST estimated that there were 66,100 pounds of fuel in AA11 and 62,000 pounds in UA175 at impact (NCSTAR1-2B, pg. 171). Of those totals, NIST estimated that 20% was consumed in the initial fireballs, 40% was distributed on the impact floors, and 40% drained or flowed into the lower structure (NCSTAR1-5F pg. 56).

Great! We have a bunch of guesses that can be tweaked to fit the results. Kind of like the computer models we discussed a while back, but I digress...

Quote:

Yes, these are rough estimates, and I am on record criticizing these estimates in my whitepaper. However, working out a better estimate either through investigation or modeling would be a nontrivial undertaking, and for now, it's the best we have. Certainly it's in the right ballpark.

Are you on record criticizing other portions of the NIST report? If so have you contacted NIST to make or suggest corrections as others have?
You don't have to answer those of course.

Quote:

2. I'm referring to all chemical explosives. The energy density of Jet A is approximately 43 MJ / kg (remember that number for later). The typical yardstick, TNT, is a mere 4.2 MJ / kg, ten times less. Exotic, impractical, high-powered explosives such as octanitrocubane only get up to about 7.5 to 8 MJ / kg, still a factor of five below Jet A. It really doesn't matter what explosive compound you fantasize about, they just aren't going to give you more energy than the jet fuel, unless you propose a fantastic amount of it. I can only assume you don't know much about explosives.

I think your missing an important point that I address below. How is that energy released into a destructive form.You understand that the way the energy is released is different between jet fuel and tnt. You understand that in a jet fuel explosion, all of the energy does not support the shockwave/ blast pressure due to reactions at the molecular level.

Quote:

3. As a matter of fact, I can prove that jet fuel could cause the damage seen. This step is a long one.

To begin, let us model the problem as follows: Suppose the entire basement of a Tower suffered an overpressure event, sufficient to cause the observed damage. We can describe the damage qualitatively:

Lets see if paper and pencil support reality...

Quote:

There was extensive damage to interior and furniture over a wide area.

Can you detail what part of the interior you are referring to and the type of damage?

Quote:

Damage to the structure, however, was minor to negligible.

Can you explain the structure in relation to the interior part you mention above and the damage you are referring to

There are no reports of anyone being killed by the blast. The principal danger was fire.

You left out a key component. People being injured by the blast, not just killed. It may have not killed anyone inside because you are unaware of their location in relation to the pools of jet fuel you state could have caused the explosion. This key point contradicts the extensive damage to walls, parking garages, offices, etc. Yet another contradiction. The principal cause of damage was a shock wave, not fire. Remember people were burned in the 1993 truck bombing as well, and most it was believed died from a collapsing wall, much like the reports after 9/11 about a wall being blown up and injuring one survivors face.

Quote:

Based on these factors, we estimate that the magnitude of the pressure pulse was moderate, in the range of 1 PSI, since overpressures of 5 PSI typically damage or destroy all but hardened structures, and would have surely killed many who were inside. Nevertheless, we want to overestimate the energy requirement to make absolutely certain that my contention -- that the jet fuel is more than sufficient -- is true. We will use the higher, less credible estimate of 5 PSI. In proper units, this is 34.5 kPa.

Again the pressure pulse/shock wave is created differently at the molecular level as I pointed out above.

Quote:

Next, suppose the deflagration pressurized the entire volume of the basement to 5 PSI. This is another deliberate overestimate. In actual fact, the overpressure would be a wave rather than a static phenomenon, and thus the true energy requirements are much, much lower. Let us suppose that the basement area was the size of the WTC footprint (64 m square) times a depth of 25 m, sufficient for at least six sublevels. This is a total volume of roughly 100,000 m3.

Here is yet another error. It was not one large area of course, but divided into multiple floors separated by large floors of concrete. What you have proposed is a large empty cube for a model. You don’t place walls, shafts, machinery, shops, parking garages, offices, subway tunnels, etc. into your ‘cube’ that would dissipate the energy through the destruction process.
Your applying your calculations to an empty cube instead of a model based upon reality. Are you sure you don’t work for NIST?

Next, we work out the energy required to raise that entire volume by the pressure differential required. There are several ways to calculate this, depending on your model of the process. The simplest is to consider the Bernoulli energy density, in which case E = ΔP V, but this only applies in non-dissipative processes along streamlines, and is generally an underestimate. At the other extreme, we can consider an increase in pressure due to heating in a constant-volume process, which is maximally entropic and will overestimate the energy required. We will use the latter extreme.

Quote:

To solve the energy density in this fashion, we simply apply the Ideal Gas Law, in this case expressed as follows:

Doesn’t the ideal gas law state that real fluids at low density and high temperature, approximate the behavior of a classical ideal gas. However, at lower temperatures or a higher density, a real fluid deviates strongly from the behavior of an ideal gas, particularly as it condenses from a gas into a liquid or solid.
Ryan, what temperatures are you applying to your model to get the most accurate ideal gas law calculation?

Quote:

ΔP V = n R ΔT (1)

where n is the number of moles of gas and R is the gas constant.

After we solve for the increase in temperature, we can then extract the energy required from the simple expression:

E = ρ V cs ΔT (2)

where ρ is the density of air and hence ρ V is the total mass of air, and cs is the specific heat capacity of air.

Substituting for ΔT in (2) using a rearrangement of (1), we find that:

E = ρ V2 cs ΔP / n R (3)

Or, using the shorthand N = ρ V / n where N is the molar mass of air, i.e. the number of grams per mol, we arrive at the answer:

E = N V cs ΔP / R (4)

Values for these constants are as follows:

N = 28.97 g / mol

cs = 1.012 J / g K

R = 8.31 Pa m3 / mol K

And so we find that:

E = 3.53 V ΔP (5)

Quote:

In other words, this formulation is roughly 3.5 times the energy of the Bernoulli approach. All that work for a lousy factor of 3.5. So it goes.

We are now ready to compute the answer. In our problem, V = 100,000 m3, and ΔP = 34.5 kPa. Therefore, the energy required in our model -- understanding, again, that it is a deliberate overestimate -- is equal to:

E = 3.53 (100,000 m3) (34.5 kPa) = 12.5 GJ

12.5 GJ is a lot of energy. But how much is that in terms of jet fuel? Now recall that jet fuel has an energy density of 43 MJ / kg. This means, in order to get this much energy, we need (12.5 GJ) / (43 MJ / kg) = 290 kilograms of jet fuel.

That's all. 290 kg, or about 640 pounds, 375 liters, just under 100 US gallons.

I remind you, this is a wild overestimate. In practice, the fuel will probably not all burn at once, and will not be terribly efficient, but the constant-volume method above captures all of these effects. The actual number might be two to ten times smaller if we did it carefully, but that doesn't matter.

Not just in practice, mind you but in reality. Yet rather than confront reality, you use the empty cube model with all the fuel in one spot and ignited at once. I might point out that you did not detail the method of ignition in your model.

So given that we accept your 290Kg of fuel, his so called overestimate suddenly becomes an underestimate. Because in your own words, in such a scenario, the 290Kg of jet fuel would not burn all at once and will not be terribly efficient. Therefore, your minimum amount of fuel required to produce the overestimated pressure, would be higher than your result.

Yet another contradiction.

Quote:

What matters is that 290 kg of jet fuel is a totally acceptable amount of jet fuel to pour down the elevator shafts. The damage seen in the basement is, therefore, perfectly reasonable.

Now we are jumping from the empty cube model to support reality. The empty cube model left out everything that would redistribute and separate the total amount of fuel.

Quote:

I'll hurry through the rest of the questions.4. To do the same amount of damage with explosives, using the ratios already discussed above, you would need about 2900 kg of TNT, or 1450 kg of the obscure and never-used octanitrocubane. Any explosive you pick will land somewhere in the middle or perhaps heavier than these figures. That's a heck of a big boom.

This whole line of reasoning is of course flawed, because you describe no damage in your cube nor in the basement levels.

Quote:

5. This is a repeat of Question 1. See above for the source of the jet fuel amounts.

6. I can only assume that your question about mixing ratios is a desperate clutch at straws. Jet fuel's mixture ratio is 0.044 by mass. Our 290 kg of jet fuel would thus require 6591 kg of air, or a volume of 5492 m3, or about 5% of the volume treated in the above exercise. There is plenty of air to get it done. Nice try.

Considering jet fuel detonation relies upon the necessary fuel/air ratio component it has nothing to do with straws as the jet fuel expert statement I quoted below explains. The fuel pooled then ignited, obviously only the surface of this pool will ignite and begin to burn. If we imagine a pool of 290Kg of fuel, then when ignited, it is only the top layer of this fuel that will burn to begin with, thus at any one time this 290Kg of fuel has only a percentage ignited.
According to this expert:Jet fuel is similar to kerosene and, unlike gasoline, requires very high temperatures to burn. Unless it is in vapor or mist form — which can occur in a plane crash — jet fuel does not explode. Additives raise the flashpoint of jet fuel, further reducing the likelihood that it will burn. Jet fuel doesn't explode easily, experts say, and fire would not have spread along airport pipelines. Source: Alleged plot's damage would have been limited. LA Times-By Megan Garvey, Times Staff Writer
June 3, 2007

To read about this demonstrated in reality please examine this account by Ed Mitchell:
I am not a scientist, nor a physicist, nor structural engineer. I am a Boilermaker, Shipbuilder, and Blacksmith Forger. Union. Now a contractor on military facilities. I build steel storage tanks for jet fuel. A few years ago, a typhoon blew through, and I got to watch a Mobil AST, with 1,000,000 gallons of diesel in it, get hit with lightning. The grounding failed, and the million gallons blew up. Well, for a diesel fire that is. It didn’t “blow up”. It simply caught fire, burned itself out after 4 days, blackened the steel.Source: Physics"

Quote:

7. Repeat of Question 3.8. I have no need to provide witnesses. The level of destruction that would be wrought by my model explosion above is greater than even the most speculative cherry-picked assessment of witness reports. This is the value of doing a bracketing or "worst case" analysis. I can afford to sacrifice precision, since the effect is so obviously within the capability of a jet fuel explosion.

No need to provide witnesses? LOL. I would state that too if I were trying to prove large pools of jet fuel ignited after impact and caused the damage in the multiple levels of the basement structure. Again, not a single person describes 1 gallon of jet fuel let alone 100 gallons or more. Keep this in mind when you state you have no need to provide witnesses.

Quote:

9. It should now be perfectly obvious why we accept the jet fuel argument, and why we reject the "truck bomb" argument. But for your benefit, I'll state it anyway:

Remember how big the "truck bomb" was in 1993? 1300 pounds of various low to moderate explosives, call it 1000 pounds TNT equivalent. My jet fuel situation above is about five times more powerful. You'd have to spec an awfully big truck.

Your problem however is that you apply the same shock wave process to jet fuel as you do to TNT. This is an error of course. The process occurring at the molecular level is different resulting in a non-ideal explosive in the jet fuel form. The jet fuel will not have all of the energy supporting the shock wave and the pressure pulse will not reflect all of the energy released during detonation so you can not apply the same pressure pulse to the two explosions. TNT because the oxidizer is combined with the fuel at the molecular level results in an ideal explosive.
Now your jet fuel scenario which is 5 times more powerful doesn't do anywhere near the damage as the 1993 truck bomb. Why the reason I listed above.

Quote:

Despite being smaller than my jet fuel case, the 1993 truck bomb woke up the whole damn town. No way to conceal that. Forget it. It would be totally obvious that high explosives had been used. The jet fuel, on the other hand, delivers its blast as a deflagration, and is totally consistent with witness statements, both inside and outside the structure.

Now your comparing the amount of explosives of 1993 with jet fuel and stating the same amount of explosives had to have been used in 2001. Tsk, tsk.

Quote:

Even a smaller truck bomb, on par with the 1993 event, would have killed people through blast and shrapnel. Didn't happen. So you must have a smaller truck bomb. This contradicts the points above, thus the hypothesis is DOA.

The 1993 event killed 6 people. As this article points out, most if not all were killed by a collapsing wall. But people were also burned and injured by a concussive force as well. Yet no one would argue that a bomb didn't go off. To add to that, some thought that a plane had hit the building. So to point out the injuries in people to disprove the bomb in the basement is erroneous and rejected.

Quote:

Unlike truck bombs, it's clear to everyone that there was jet fuel in massive quantities running all over the place. There's no evidence for explosives. The "excuse" is yours.

Yet another contradiction. Earlier in your comment you do not care to provide witnesses for the "jet fuel pool in the basement theory" yet rely on witnesses to describe jet fuel running all over the place. At impact level, yes, but in the basement, no. You need witnesses to report the fact jet fuel was in the impact areas, but reject witnesses who don't describe pools of jet fuel in the basement.

Quote:

How anyone would trigger a bomb coincident with a jetliner impact is almost too incredible to contemplate. Was someone watching with his finger on the button? Why? What's the point?

Straw of course but I will entertain. Why couldn't someone be watching with their finger on the button so to speak? What is the point?
1. To hamper rescue/firefighting efforts.
2. To help bring the towers down. They knew it wouldn't get it done in 1993 so perhaps they tried again with planes this time, or to help rig the core in the basement levels to assist in the collapse.
3. Kill and injure as many people as possible.

---

Quote:

I strongly suspect this entire exercise won't change your totally unsupported and fantastical beliefs one bit, but maybe I'm wrong. Justify my optimism. Try to understand. Take all the time you need.

Thanks, I appreciate your thoughts.
What I've found is:
1. Your own theory contradicts the NIST report. (Closet truther? )
2. You do have issues with the NIST reports. (Not RMackey!!)
3. You recognize that NIST made errors in their report. (A debunker recognizes this!!?!?!)
4. You believe that flawed models reflect reality. (Now that's more like it!)
5. You believe that jet fuel, when ignited, produces the same pressure pulse that TNT creates when detonated thereby comparing a "non-ideal explosive i.e. jet fuel, with an "ideal explosive" tnt.
6. You believe that your jet fuel model, which apparently is 5 times more powerful than the 1993 truck bomb, did very little damage in comparison to the 1993 attack.
7. Witnesses are only to be used when they support your side of an argument.

__________________"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-John SKilling-Head Structural Engineer WTC-1993 Seattle Times

1. Your own theory contradicts the NIST report. (Closet truther? )
2. You do have issues with the NIST reports. (Not RMackey!!)
3. You recognize that NIST made errors in their report. (A debunker recognizes this!!?!?!)
4. You believe that flawed models reflect reality. (Now that's more like it!)
5. You believe that jet fuel, when ignited, produces the same pressure pulse that TNT creates when detonated thereby comparing a "non-ideal explosive i.e. jet fuel, with an "ideal explosive" tnt.
6. You believe that your jet fuel model, which apparently is 5 times more powerful than the 1993 truck bomb, did very little damage in comparison to the 1993 attack.
7. Witnesses are only to be used when they support your side of an argument.

So...in other words, you found nothing.

Thanks for clarifying!

__________________Sorrowful and great is the artist's destiny. - Liszt

Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful.- Ian Faith

Thanks, I should go D'uh! (should have thought of adding "old") but that was great to find the files still on the site.... so this should be Ginny's introduction to the tape, and this should be the part of the tape that captures the impact of UA 175.

Thanks, I should go D'uh! (should have thought of adding "old") but that was great to find the files still on the site.... so this should be Ginny's introduction to the tape, and this should be the part of the tape that captures the impact of UA 175.

So is Dylan's sonic manipulation in LC Final Cut as well?

And where is Swing?

I'm awaiting the Sonic Memorial to host the audio file again, however, another audio host has the file here: WTC1 Witness

Although I can't verify the authenticity of the audio itself, the file linked to above sounds identical to the one I downloaded to my computer when it first became public knowledge.

I will admit, however, that the first 'explosion' and the second 'explosion' could be in opposite order, i.e. the plane impact, and then an additional explosion or vice versa. Clearly, two distinct sounds can be heard with a few seconds apart. Ginny stated in her introduction of the tape that she captured both impacts. I wonder if she confused the second sound on her tape with the 2nd plane impact. I think we can rule out it wasn't the tape recorder being moved or dropped, as she stated she left the recorder in its place after leaving the room.

__________________"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-John SKilling-Head Structural Engineer WTC-1993 Seattle Times

I'm awaiting the Sonic Memorial to host the audio file again, however, another audio host has the file here: WTC1 Witness

Although I can't verify the authenticity of the audio itself, the file linked to above sounds identical to the one I downloaded to my computer when it first became public knowledge.

I will admit, however, that the first 'explosion' and the second 'explosion' could be in opposite order, i.e. the plane impact, and then an additional explosion or vice versa. Clearly, two distinct sounds can be heard with a few seconds apart. Ginny stated in her introduction of the tape that she captured both impacts. I wonder if she confused the second sound on her tape with the 2nd plane impact. I think we can rule out it wasn't the tape recorder being moved or dropped, as she stated she left the recorder in its place after leaving the room.

I have heard HE and experienced my windows being shattered by HE. Your posted mp3 low resolution sound is not HE. Too bad; strike three, over and over again. Proof of no HE used on 9/11 again posted by 9/11 truth want to be truth junkies. (ironically named, 9/11 truth, spews lies on 9/11)

I wonder if that was that elevator falling? Anyway, UBL said again he was solely responsible Swing, so you are wrong by the source. Sad you have wasted your time trying in vain to blame others for what UBL takes credit for because he did it (helped). 19 terrorist boarded planes and did what even you did not see coming. Now you have had 6 years and still no facts for your failed ideas on 9/11. How does if feel to be wrong?

Could be the sound of a fireball and back draft, and aircraft impact, but not HE.

From the terrorist’s point of view, even they didn’t think the towers would collapse by plane impact alone which would necessitate at least in their view additional explosives. See OBL’s statements. I’m not arguing from an “inside job” point of view at this point. A truck bomb in the basement is of course consistent with terrorist activities despite who you think the terrorists are. If I'm not mistaken, the goal of the 1993 attack was to bring the towers down, correct?

Swing's still playing this pathetic game I see.

One minute he thinks 9/11 was an inside job where the government blew up the WTC and the next minute he argues that OBL decided to add a truck bomb just in case a friggin plane impact didn't suffice.

I suppose that means Al Qaeda did the planes and the truck bombs while the US regime planted the rest of the bombs needed to blast the building into dust

It's no wonder this "evidence" hasn't translated into a logical narrative yet.

I can not see what there is to discuss in that tape. We clearly hear the sound of jet-engines before the sound of the first impact, then another impact about 9 seconds later, easily explained by for instance the wall section that fell down about 300 meters from 1 Liberty Plaza where Jenny Carr was. The distance to WTC 1 was a little bit more. But in both cases the sounds travel time would be about equal.

Swing: The sound of the second impact is on the second audio clip, which I've linked above. I seriously doubt she would have thought the second plane crashed just 9 seconds after the first one.

Norseman: That is an excellent suggestion, very plausible. The perimeter column section fell just two blocks away near the Greek Orthodox Church, and 9 seconds of freefall sounds about right. There may have been other debris falling that exited, like the landing gear that crashed (and richocheted, according to witnesses) in the vicinity of Rector Street.